Battlefield V

Heh, I agree.

People give Call of Duty: Black Ops such a hard time for being grossly inaccurate in terms of technology. But honestly, I viewed the game as a sort of alternative universe/history fiction with a mix of James Bond elements so I didn't have much problem accepting it.

New trailer. This should silence the hate.

Here is also some actual gameplay.

Also, tangentially related to the katana debate from way back: I just remembered that the Brigade of Gurkhas saw extensive action in North Africa, Syria/Lebanon, Italy and Greece. So while katanas are questionable, a few unlucky Landsers certainly did find themselves on the wrong end of a kukri.

^ Gurkhas did see combat pretty much worldwide. North Africa theatre, Middle Eastern theatre, Southeast Asia (China-Burma-India) and the Pacific.

So kukris do have plausibility, unlike a certain robot arm...

As I said, prosthetics back in that time were cosmetic only. Not functional enough to shoot guns or anything like that. They were basically only used to cover up disfigurements caused by shrapnel or burns and that was it.

We didn't start getting prosthetics that could function more like an real arm until after WW 2. Likely in response to the second major time tons of soldiers were coming home with missing limbs

edited 9th Jun '18 9:34:52 PM by Wispy

Early body-powered prosthetics were really quite primitive. Opening and closing the "hand" is controlled entirely by how far you move the arm out from the body, and doing even simple daily tasks is quite awkward. Having a soldier in the middle of pitched combat with one of those looks more than a little ridiculous. It's only in the modern day that we're getting anything even remotely close to powered prosthetics replicating default Human limb functionality, and these are extremely advanced prototype devices that are incredibly expensive.

It's like DICE wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be "authentic" and "immersive" but they also want to put as much shit in there as they want for the sake of gameplay innovation and character customization. I think they have to pick one. Either that, or simply stop emphasizing how serious and genuine your game is going to be in your marketing.

edited 9th Jun '18 10:47:09 PM by Gault

1080 yy under the leg behind the back no scope mid air head shots on fighter planes maximum realism yo. Take a hundred bullets without dying and still be able to play if I die total immersion. Single handedly defeat the Nazis at Normandy completely historically accurate. BUT NO WOMEN!!!!!

Yeah...arguing realism immersion and historical accuracy kind of goes out the window when the first three are considered fine.

That kinda happened. With a pistol no less!

Thus the SJW outrage of "<insert allegedly silly item here> BUT NO WOMEN!" argument falls apart.

edited 10th Jun '18 5:44:26 AM by MajorTom

As did female◊ Asian soldiers, who featured prominently in the gameplay footage, so I'm sure that everyone's happy with the accuracy level now.

Wondering how much naval combat will factor into the gameplay. Seeing Narvik as a setting brings to mind that one time when HMS Warspite sailed into the fjord and single-handedly decimated the Nazi destroyer fleet, and I might seriously consider giving the game a try if it gives the player a chance to re-enact that particular episode.

But where are the stress and hunger meters? Can your soldier die from hypothermia in Syberia? How much will bullet wounds in the previous mission play an impact on the game? Why include tanks and planes if you don't know how to use them?

There's also these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_women_during_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_World_Wars#World_War_II

If one miracle instance is treated as the norm in game and considered okay why not women as it was rare but did happen?

The problem is not women in general, Call of Duty did women in WW 2 over a decade ago in some of their campaigns in the earliest games.

The problem, is specifically the presentation of the woman in the trailer. This tailored-for-political-correctness with no basis in reality. Had she been Russian, the complaints would have only been the robot arm. But they didn't do that, they made her Brit who didn't have frontline women soldiers, and an amputee with an anachronistic prosthetic arm of which neither would have been allowed onto the front back then anyways be it a woman or man.

In short, the anger is over pushing an agenda by way of a very poor quality trailer.

Or maybe its just a poorly made trailer with dumb decisions behind it and the SJW Agenda your claiming that is behind it isn't there?

The meaning behind the term social justice warriors has been completely lost over the years and does not apply here. I think what happened here was DICE going crazy on customization while not being in touch with their marketing team (or the marketing team not being in touch with them).

It's ironic that the anti social justice warriors are doing the exact same thing themselves, rallying the call to arms to put social pressure on game developers to make games the way they want them made. See having this in the games or that not in the game as just, in there fighting.

The same sjws would likely cheer freedom of speech on Steam and allow games like Active Shooter, incidentally, so why Dice and EA are not allowed freedom of speech in their games is a mystery.

"Frontline soldier" is a fairly arbitrary qualifier, especially in a conflict as total and all-consuming as WWII. Were the ATS women who manned air defences during the Battle of Britain "frontline soldiers"? Were the Army nurses who shielded their patients from Japanese bayonets with their bodies "frontline soldiers"? Were the female SOE agents who killed Gestapo men with their bare hands "frontline soldiers"? Were the thousands of Merchant Navy seawomen who braved air attacks and torpedos to deliver Lend-Lease materiel to Arkhangelsk "frontline soldiers"? Because I think they were, and I think that every single one of them have a damn good claim to have people who look like them represented in our retellings of the war. If paying tribute to all the female heroes who fought, bled and died in the path of liberty is an agenda, then it's an agenda that I'd be glad to help push.

(I don't have a lot to say about the mechanical claw, but we've already had male protagonist who took robot bodies and gunned down Hitler in the past. I think that we're going to survive this one.)

Well DICE and EA seem to have learned nothing from the Battlefront fiasco and keep throwing gas on the fires they create.

First we have Patrick Soderlund basically calling everybody idiots or more quotedly "uneducated".

And then we have this "gem" from him.

That right there is why the SJW criticisms exist. He's sugarcoating and whitewashing history for the benefit of feelings and screwing up parenting too! You don't take this kind of game rated for 17+ year olds and put it front of a 13 year old teenager.

And then there's this:

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/ea-on-women-in-battlefield-v-haters-can-either-accept-it-or-dont-buy-the-game

The ever-classy immature answer of "Don't Like? Don't Buy".

This game needs to flop hard then. We're talking Franchise Killer like Mass Effect: Andromeda was. If that's the way they want to act towards potential paying customers and long time fans, they don't deserve a future.

And anecdotally I'm hearing zero interest in buying the game from others I know because of all this crap. The Fortnite mechanics, the bloated silly customization, the robot arm, the katana wielding Kratos wannabe, the COD-level gunplay and more all being thrashed. And none of it has to do with women.

But keep painting us with that broadest of brushes, I'm sure the EA Board of Shareholders will perfectly accept the answer that Battlefield players are universal bigots and sexists when sales flop and they lose millions. Oh wait, they won't.

Thumbs up for Patrick Söderlund. Nice to have someone stand up to the super toxic parts of the gaming world.

I have been playing violent games since I was far younger then that. Didn't harm me much.

With all this ridiculous outrage, I wouldn't be surprised if this sold a huge amount of copies.

So did I but back then, video games were games first and foremost. They didn't have things like gambling microtransactions, or blatant political agendas and they typically shied away from controversial topics. Hell, M-rated games were few and far between back then. (The 1990s.)

Or to use the proper answer Mr Soderlund should have told his daughter about WW 2 "It was a different time".

edited 14th Jun '18 5:14:47 AM by MajorTom

I am tired of everything being about politics so I am going to vacate this thread.

Everything has some degree of political undertones though.

Yes, yes that "everything is political" crap.

At least undertones isn't as overtly fucking annoying.

edited 14th Jun '18 5:46:39 AM by slimcoder

And the presentation of history is perhaps is the most political of all. Even before the war was over, its history was already being rewritten in the name of (contemporary) political correctness.

If you're looking for high-realism wargaming, you're looking in the wrong place with Battlefield. Regardless of how they're billing themselves this was never going to be a warsim, it's a AAA shooter with a realistic flavor at best.

With a "historical accuracy" complaint about women it's easy to read between the lines. The fact that the other inaccuracies can be overlooked but women can't makes it even easier.